Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:47:00 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Orlando Andico <orly AT dilnet DOT upd DOT edu DOT ph>
cc: root <vischne AT ibm DOT net>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: The future of Djgpp
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.96.971021155227.6596B-100000@gibson.eee.upd.edu.ph>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971022134643.7612E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Orlando Andico wrote:

> What are these "Joliet extensions?" another Micro$oft "invention"?

I'm not sure, but apparently they were designed by Microsoft, yes.

> Why aren't Rock Ridge extensions good enough for them, anyway?

AFAIK, Windows 95/NT don't support Rock Ridge extensions.  They
support ISO 9660, both level 1 and level 2, and MSCDEX only support
level 1.

Joliet allows Unicode characters (including lower-case letters) in
file names, and is therefore ideal for NT and 9X; ISO only allows
upper-case characters.  (Joliet also allows file names up to 128
bytes, i.e. 64 characters, whereas ISO only allows 31.)

So if you need to produce a CD that will be used by both
MSDOS/Windows3 and Windows9X/NT, the best choice is Joliet, because it
supports all those platforms, and provides for level 1 directories
(with short 8+3 names) for those systems, like MSDOS, which don't
support longer names.  The only problem with Joliet is that it is
AFAIK incompatible with Unix (which supports Rock Ridge extensions.)
I think that NT 3.51 and earlier don't support Joliet either.

Some info about the different CD formats is available at the following
URL:

     http://www.cd-info.com/CDIC/Technology/CD-R/FAQ.html#[3-5]